DAN WEINTRAUB, D/B/A WINTERS INTERNATIONAL, INC., OR DAN WINTERS TRUCKING, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWIN L. MASON, JERRY W. CARTER, AND WILBUR C. KING, AS MEMBERS OF AND CONSTITUTING THE FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an interlocutory injunction against a business owner accused of operating as an unlicensed carrier. The court found insufficient evidentiary support for the injunction, particularly regarding whether the owner provided drivers for leased equipment.
No, the evidence presented by the Commission lacked adequate and substantial evidentiary support to justify the interlocutory injunction.
“We have examined it, and we must agree with the contention advanced by the appellant that there was no adequate or substantial evidentiary support for the preliminary injunction.”
This quote establishes the court's finding that the evidence presented was insufficient to support the injunction.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint seeking an injunction against the appellant, who leases tractors and trailers, alleging he o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Injunctive Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Proceeding under Ch. 322, Fla.Stat., F.S. A., the Florida Public Utilities Commission filed a complaint for injunction against the appellant, who is in the business of leasing tractors and trailers, charging he was operating as a carrier without license contrary to the statute.
This appeal is from an interlocutory injunction which was granted after notice and hearing. The pertinent issue there was whether appellant furnished drivers. His filed affidavit stated that he did not. The evidence submitted by plaintiffs consisted of hearsay and of legal conclusions stated by an investigator. No useful purpose would be served by quoting his testimony here. We have examined it, and we must agree with the contention advanced by the appellant that there was no adequate or substantial evidentiary support for the preliminary injunction. Therefore the order appealed from should be and hereby is reversed.
Reversed.